Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Justice America

Add links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justice America

I feel Wikipedia's Arbcom needs a real shaking up, and I'm the one to do it. I've observed this site for years, though I generally have shied from making physical edits. In real life I'm a lawyer, and will use my legalese to work through even the most difficult cases. I feel my lack of connection here makes me an ideal candidate, as I have no conflicts of interest. Thanks for reading this, and I hope you look past my inexperience. Justice America (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Although, I suggest you consider a name change before next year's elections. PhilKnight (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Everyone needs at least one support, and two is better. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Inexperience and legalese, what could go wrong?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. America! FUCK YEAH! --harej 00:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tactical support. ST47 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tactical support. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Harej Xavexgoem (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support RMHED (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NYB comes from the law world and be makes a great arbitrator. Justice America comes from the law world. By the property of assumption, Justice America is...? You know the answer to that. Plus he seems like he actually wants to help. Wizardman 20:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral support DurovaCharge! 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tactical support, wonder if the others are for the same reason? Brilliantine (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tactical support - unsuitable for ArbCom at this time, but doesn't deserve to be so far down the list either. Terraxos (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support For only the third time in my thirty-five-and-a-half months here, I agree with Doc, only my appeal for inexperience and legalese is made without irony, sarcasm, or facetiousness (so we don't really agree, but it's a month for happiness and unity, so I'll take something positive wherever I might find it). As a believer in the importance of process (as, for one, a guarantor of the rights of the community), I have on more than one occasion expressed hope that we might someday have an ArbCom composed exclusively of lawyers or other individuals to have undergone training the law and logic, and we would do well, at the very least, to have on the committee another lawyer interested in the initial crafting of decisions, as I imagine the candidate to be; he or she who first sets out the proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies largely controls the course and scope of a case, and so Brad (largely by virtue of his being a diligent and committed committee member and his being particularly skilled at the crafting of what are at their essence judicial opinions, which is, I should say explicitly, a great thing) has often been able to place a very strong imprint on the agenda and decisions of the ArbCom and to advance generally many of his beliefs, which beliefs, my personal affection for Brad aside, are quite at odds with mine, especially problematic because his conception of ArbCom is a bit broader than mine (as, most significantly, with respect to the appropriateness of members's substituting their own views about what policy ought to be for those of the community solely because the areas those policies surround are thorny); I perceive that Justice America might be an interesting, dynamic counterweight. My "support"s are longest, it seems, when they are late and useless, offered on hopeless cases, but I write at such length here because I'm unable to say anything concisely so that I might do my part to encourage the candidate to involve himself with arbitration and whatever reworking of ArbCom processes might soon be undertaken, not only in order that he might be a more viable candidate next year but in order that we might benefit from his input in the meanwhile. Joe 05:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Basically agree with everything Joe said. Many sighs. --JayHenry (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sounds wonderful. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr talk 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. chaser - t 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Voyaging(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. MBisanz talk 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin yet. --Elonka 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Majorly talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Communication problems, no response to questions does not inspire confidence in handling cases. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. iridescent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Caspian blue 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. krimpet✽ 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No answers to questions. We need to know what you intend to shake up. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Steven Walling (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. kurykh 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Avruch T 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose --Banime (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per [non-existent] answers to questions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. iMatthew 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. —Chris! ct 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. AMERICA FUCK YEAH! Oppose --Mixwell!Talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Koji† 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. J.delanoygabsadds 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose JodyB talk 02:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. ... Prodego talk 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Nope. MER-C 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose BJTalk 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Contributions and responses to questions gave me no reason to believe this editor is qualified. GRBerry 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Not even a Q&A. What was the point? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I'm all for change, but at least fake like you were serious about this. Mike H. Fierce! 04:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Per lack of experience. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. David Shankbone 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose, but I really hope you stay on and work towards building the kind of experience that gets you there in the future! bd2412 T 07:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 'Oppose strongly. Does not appear to understand how the ArbCom elections work, let alone the ArbCom itself. Enigma message 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - Editcount does not show sufficient experience in either policy or dispute resolution areas to inspire confidence that this candidate is familiar with how we settle problems, or is skilled at doing so. Lack of answers to questions indicates lack of an engagement in the ACE process, and a lack of interest in their own candidacy. Please do keep editing, learn more about how things works around here, and try again in a couple of years. //roux   editor review08:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Who? --Folantin (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Very little experience, only a handful of edits; the candidate is not ready to be trusted in this sort of position. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. — neuro(talk) 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose 168 edits is insufficient in my opinion to show you are sufficiently involved in this community to serve on Arbcomm this year. Get more involved in things like wp:fac or wherever else in wikipedia that you find enjoyable and I'll reconsider in a future year. ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 14:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - insufficient experience. PseudoOne (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Dengero (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I have nothing against new faces on the Committee, but more experience is needed. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Supportive oppose. By all appearances, a useful good-faith contributor who just doesn't have the experience to be an arbitrator at this point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Per Sarcasticdidealist; keep up the good work, but too little experience for this role at present. MastCell Talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Synergy 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Sorry, but this is a very high-level group in the Wikipedia community and requires strong familiarity with Wikipedia, which is somewhat lacking this case. Maybe later. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Tiptoety talk 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose More extensive experience required. GlassCobra 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose --VS talk 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a position that requires a time commitment, and that you've not edited since November 10 indicates you don't have the time. I really hope that if you find some free time you find ways to get more involved because we're always in need of more smart editors. --JayHenry (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose. macy 00:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Alexfusco5 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. Unserious.--Wetman (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Per so many reasons, they all have been summed up though. Not admin, not experienced etc. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong Oppose this candidacy which has the appearance (IMO) of a joke. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose: Not remotely enough experience. I doubt the candidate, whatever his legal background, would want a judge trying a case of his with as little experience as he proposes bringing here.  RGTraynor  20:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose - we need less legalese, not more. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. oppose first and foremost ARBCOM members must be willing to answer questions when asked. Gnangarra 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Too inactive. Joe Nutter 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong Oppose - this is not a game, stop making the other non-admin candidates look bad and if this is not a sock or good-hand account, please get more experience before even thinking about running for something as important as this ......--Cometstyles 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Kusma (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Gentgeen (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    per Cometstyles. This isn't even a joke nom, it's just plain annoying and unfair to those non-admins who are making an effort. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose I think you meant this in good faith, but ask the one lawyer on the ArbCom: that ain't enough. You need more experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policy before we can even consider this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Michael Snow (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose GizzaDiscuss © 23:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose per WP:NOTYET. Also, I feel like you don't even care about your role here, per your questions. Leujohn (talk)
  95. Oppose Username is somewhat unnerving. Not an admin -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose Happy‑melon 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. I like the fact that his edit history shows he does not live at Wikipedia but far too few recent edits (almost none in October or November) so I oppose. Chergles (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose. If someone can convince me that this isn't a hoax nomination, I might be willing to reconsider. Cynical (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose. Thankfully there was little to read (short statement, few contributions, and no answers to any questions) so not a lot of time was wasted researching this candidate. In order to register a serious oppose or support for a candidate requires at least some time is spent researching and considering that candidate. There are too many candidates entering this election who have no chance at all of being elected, taking up time. SilkTork *YES! 08:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Terence (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose Does not seem to be taking the application seriously. LK (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Wronkiew (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Very Strong Oppose. Where is the experience???? Willking1979 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose, not qualified. Shyam (T/C) 09:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose - Not enough experience, and didn't answer any questions. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Tex (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Weak oppose; I really want to see a few candidates "win". Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose check out THIS physical edit tgies (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Lack of experience or tenure on the project. — Manticore 07:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose Gazimoff 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose Your thesis is incorrect; you need to be connected. Fred Talk 19:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose Do we need a wikilawyer? Computerjoe's talk 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose Hard to assess a candidate if they do not bother to answer the questions. Rje (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose No answeres to questions --Nate1481 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose small number of edits --Rjecina (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. One of my few oppose votes - not enough experience and did not answer the questions. 43 mainspace edits is just not enough. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose. Shy??? Consider also changing the name ;)--Michael X the White (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose. What? Why on earth should anyone support this guy? Give us one, good reason. deeceevoice (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose Nil Einne (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. — Sebastian 09:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose. Not an administrator, thus severely inexperienced with community at hand. Caulde 14:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose--Sultec (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. SQLQuery me! 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Justice_America&oldid=1221636680"